It varies, At bigger fields, resident aircraft (from a flying school) will or may get a reduced landing fee. At some fields, e.g. Old Buckenham, membership means that you don't pay at all. At small grass strips there may be no charge. But yes, you are right that it can be a significant expenditure when learning to fly, as it was for me at Norwich. The situation is a bit better now that training in the UK does not have to be at licensed fields.

In many cases not very well. It is a safety concern and in the last 10 years I have watched the standard of circuits drop. Under the old National GFT people were failed if they didn't get it right. Now at the end of a 2.5 hour JAA Skill Test they are half dead, so you can't expect too much, and if they are failed more than once, it becomes a very expensive resit, consequently many examiners give the candidate the benefit of the doubt. The JAA has effectively reduced standards over 10 years.

Just to clear up a few bits of “miss information”. Most strips are available PPR, and the numbers are in Navbox 99% of the time. Most have planning or legal use. Many are used for flight training on things like Eurostars and are considering expanding into GA training now the rules have changed. £20 for a landing fee…

With regard to sustainability, the strip world has existed for as long as I have been flying (1984). The only difference is there are now a lot more. People tend to lose sight of the fact that the average light aircraft will fly quite well out of 600m of Grass, without a lot of expensive infrastructure supporting it.

Rod1

If a landing at an airfield has a value (and it surely has), it should be paid.

In USA the tax collected from Avgas is used to subsidise the airports, the money is not simply stolen by the government. In socialist Europe that money is stolen by governments and used elsewhere, where it is more visible to the electorate. And we must pay the tax in the price of avgas and landing fees on top of that.

The ideal system in my opinion is WITHOUT fuel-tax and WITH landing fees.
Everyone of us would be more happy.

The idea the local authorities should pay for the running cost of an airport sounds too socialist to me. Where will they get the money from? The answer is simple, print them or order higher taxes.

One of my friends plays tennis. He must pay a hourly fee for the tennis court. Does the local authority pay his fees too? The same logic...

miroc

Landing fees.
 

Mr.X99,

Canada is "mostly" a free landing fee zone but my 172RG always attracts a $53 landing fee in Calgary and I also have a Navigation chage as well.

My Canadian licence is not free, and each year I incur a fee for "processing" my renewal.

That is nothing compared to the "Ministry of Greed and Envy" as practiced in the UK and Europe where aviation is treated like a cash cow to be milked frequently.

In the US, the airports are usually city or county owned and regarded as an asset to bring business to visit the city, and help the economy. Fuel tax is also used to help in the cost. A totaly different attitude to you poor guys in Europe. A lot of civil airports will also have a National Guard in residence even with a military airport close by. The National Guard is paid for by the state so the state gets its dollars back with the use of the airport.

My US certificates, several. (licences) are all free although I pay the Medical Examiner for my medical. The FAA would love to start charging for their services but thankfully we are lucky so far.

We are very fortunate but the UK will never allow no landing fee's, dream on!!!

Speedbird48

I can quote one grass strip next to a golf course in the SW where the landing fee is £20. It has no facilities at all but charges the same as Gloucester.

Another charges the same as a local regional spaceport. But here it is because of stringent restrictions on movements by the local authority and although the owner would love to welcome visitors, the local Nimbys are watching for a breach in the agreement to have the airfield closed.

I never realized that students had to pay for "touch & Goes" each time during flight training. That is very poor practice. So really practicing landing could add $2000 on to flight training.

It is a simple solution,put "all-aerodromes" under county council authority ,private owners receive grants for maintenance. I can't see cutting grass once a week as being a big expense. Some say its complicated thats because ineffective bureaucracies make it that way. Very simple legislation. Present the bill to the floor,grease the right palms....job done.

Otherwise the extreme measure is to terminate UK aerospace authority under the new "EU Project" and put them under military authority and maintained by the NATO budget.

Easy solution.Just like tax free flight training,to kick stat the industry and compete with other countries. Otherwise in 5- years you will have little or no flight training here except for the elite,which it already is reserved for.

MR.X99 your use of English suggests that you are not a native. Where are you from?

Yes I have,they were introduced in the mid-90,s. The primary difference is in the medical. In the UK for a NPPL one does not need to visit an aviation medical examiner. The medical is the same as for a taxi driver,bus driver etc.A GP can sign you off.Different medical regulations.Is this the case with the FAA & MOT ? Please correct me if I am wrong that will be good information if it was the case.

I am from Western Canada. Currently in Malaysia and on contract in the UK.

That is only possible in the UK because all medical data is centralised (so I haved read). Other countries, have such strict privacy laws and a doctor gets only the info the patient gives him.... often not enough for flying. But that's a whole different subject.

Communities, cities, etc. have no funds to pay for or maintain airfields. Those that do own fields try to sell them, or turn them into more profitable industrial parks :ugh: Turn over the airfields to the city and you can expect it to be closed completely within a very short time!

Most fields offer reduced landing fees for students, at least during the week (because of noise issues often not on the weekends).

As you see, there is a lot more involved here then simply saying get rid of landing fees!

Mowing the grass can be expensive depending on who does it. Many glider fields have a local farmer do it because he can keep the grass for his farm animals, so no cost. But that means he wants it to grow higher then is safe for flying, which can mean a whole lovely weekend on the ground! Others fields get mowed by club members, others have to hire someone.

"How do people learn to land an aircraft properly when they have to pay for every landing?"

A far number of flying schools get free landing fees at there home base - although one could argue that this cost is paid and part of the shools rent.

I pay an annual fee at a couple of flying schools (about 100 quid for each) and as part of these terms I get unlimited T&G, Landing fees at those airfields.

This works pretty well but it doesn't give me access to night flying or instrument approaches which I still have to pay for.

Because of this I no longer teach night flying as its simply not cost effective. I also use AM radio stations to practice NDB procedures again in an effort to keep cost done.

Sorry, you read wrong. It's not centralised. If I transfer to another doctor, my medical records also have to be transferred. If I go to see another doctor in a different surgery, he can only rely on what I tell him.

Cheers

Whirls

I seem to recall that centralisation of NHS records was another of the massively expensive and failed IT projects?

Thanks for the Intel.

A number of BAe operated fields (Warton and Woodford for example) offer free touch and go's subject to PPR (if they have Typhoons or Nimrods in the circuit you can forget squeezing a Cessna in); the problem is that it cannot be depended on as a training resource, especially as BAe airfields are weekday only for the most part.

NHS records are centralised to a large degree. I can walk into any of several local GP offices and the doc pulls up my details on the screen.

Many airfields charge you an hourly rate (twice the landing fee?) for an hour's worth of landings.

I read comments on this subject here and in the other place with a wry fascination. Off the topic of flying, the majority of posters on both pilot forums appear to be somewhere to the right of the Daily Mail (for non-UK residents, that is a very nasty, very right wing rag which is horribly popular in the UK) who will rant on about asylum seekers and benefit claimants yet want our expensive hobby subsidised by the state in one form or another. Sadly, our last five prime ministers have made it their mission to destroy the essential social infrastructure never mind discretionary things like airfields, you've got what you voted for people.

I guess you have not seen some of the books I've seen :uhoh: Looks like editors are a dying breed. In modern times, authors by and large have never been much good at spelling (or in some cases, general literacy), so it's left to the proofreaders (another dying breed) and editor to turn manuscripts into recognisable English.

X99
Clearly not here, but if they are happy to pay for what the rest of us get for free or nearly, why stop them? :)